Tim Pawlenty"s Health Insurance Elimination
A new Democratic Party ad slams former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty's presidential run, urging voters to dismiss him based on his gubernatorial record.
It was claimed that in 2009, Pawlenty eliminated a health care program that serviced 33,000 low-income residents.
The new Democratic Party ad accuses the governor of working to decimate programs from the beginning of his term.
Pawlenty has publicly changed his opinion on the issue of cap and trade, and that he has admitted that he does not have a reason for running for president.
The latter claim has since been proven false.
Neither the Democratic National Committee nor the Pawlenty campaign has commented on the accusation that the governor eliminated health care for nearly 35,000 citizens.
However, the journalistic record of Minnesota in 2009 shows ample coverage of the political battle over a health care program that serviced approximately 33,000 residents.
The record shows that the health care program was indeed downsized, resulting in fewer benefits.
The health care was not completely taken away, though.
The health care program in question, General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC), acted as a plan for adults with very low income.
These adults were ineligible to receive federal Medicaid assistance, because at the time, Medicaid was only available to those who were disabled, young, pregnant, or both poor and elderly.
Pawlenty suggested changes to the program to help cut Minnesota's 2009 budget, which needed to be done.
He proposed limited benefits and transfer of some beneficiaries to a different program, MinnesotaCare.
The different program would charge premiums to its beneficiaries, in order to discourage frequent emergency room visits.
Hospital officials, along with low-income advocates, claimed the cuts would devastate the poor.
Using his line-item veto, Pawlenty got rid of GAMC funding in May 2009.
He did continue negotiating with the Minnesota legislature, controlled by Democrats, into the year 2010.
A Pawlenty spokesman said that he would consider "financially responsible" health care reform in the 2010 session.
In February, the governor again vetoed GAMC before new negotiations with the legislature.
In April, they reached a compromise to fund the program through May before reducing it gradually.
At this point, beneficiaries were forced to obtain care via the hospitals or approved clinics.
This compromise cut funding by about $268 million for the year, going from about $400 million to $132 million.
Even after the compromise, there were issues.
The governor's administration was forced to negotiate limits on the number of beneficiaries each hospital was required to accept.
After Pawlenty left office, the program underwent more modification.
The new governor, Democrat Mark Dayton, had campaigned with a suggestion to expand Medicaid in Minnesota by using the 2010 federal health care law.
Dayton signed an executive order to do just that, and the General Assistance Medical Care program was moved into Medicaid.
It appears that Pawlenty did not exactly eliminate health care for 33,000 to 35,000 people.
Rather, he reduced benefits to cut costs, while retaining basic health coverage for the low-income citizens.
It was claimed that in 2009, Pawlenty eliminated a health care program that serviced 33,000 low-income residents.
The new Democratic Party ad accuses the governor of working to decimate programs from the beginning of his term.
Pawlenty has publicly changed his opinion on the issue of cap and trade, and that he has admitted that he does not have a reason for running for president.
The latter claim has since been proven false.
Neither the Democratic National Committee nor the Pawlenty campaign has commented on the accusation that the governor eliminated health care for nearly 35,000 citizens.
However, the journalistic record of Minnesota in 2009 shows ample coverage of the political battle over a health care program that serviced approximately 33,000 residents.
The record shows that the health care program was indeed downsized, resulting in fewer benefits.
The health care was not completely taken away, though.
The health care program in question, General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC), acted as a plan for adults with very low income.
These adults were ineligible to receive federal Medicaid assistance, because at the time, Medicaid was only available to those who were disabled, young, pregnant, or both poor and elderly.
Pawlenty suggested changes to the program to help cut Minnesota's 2009 budget, which needed to be done.
He proposed limited benefits and transfer of some beneficiaries to a different program, MinnesotaCare.
The different program would charge premiums to its beneficiaries, in order to discourage frequent emergency room visits.
Hospital officials, along with low-income advocates, claimed the cuts would devastate the poor.
Using his line-item veto, Pawlenty got rid of GAMC funding in May 2009.
He did continue negotiating with the Minnesota legislature, controlled by Democrats, into the year 2010.
A Pawlenty spokesman said that he would consider "financially responsible" health care reform in the 2010 session.
In February, the governor again vetoed GAMC before new negotiations with the legislature.
In April, they reached a compromise to fund the program through May before reducing it gradually.
At this point, beneficiaries were forced to obtain care via the hospitals or approved clinics.
This compromise cut funding by about $268 million for the year, going from about $400 million to $132 million.
Even after the compromise, there were issues.
The governor's administration was forced to negotiate limits on the number of beneficiaries each hospital was required to accept.
After Pawlenty left office, the program underwent more modification.
The new governor, Democrat Mark Dayton, had campaigned with a suggestion to expand Medicaid in Minnesota by using the 2010 federal health care law.
Dayton signed an executive order to do just that, and the General Assistance Medical Care program was moved into Medicaid.
It appears that Pawlenty did not exactly eliminate health care for 33,000 to 35,000 people.
Rather, he reduced benefits to cut costs, while retaining basic health coverage for the low-income citizens.
